Life Imprisonment As A Substitute Of Death Punishment Case Study

Phase III - Life Imprisonment as a Substitute of Death Sentence (1973-80)
Now the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in its Section 354 (3) provides that in case of death sentence special reasons are to be stated. Now imprisonment for life was the rule and capital sentence was an exception, thus, in Asgar vs. State of U.P . Where Appellant Asgar has been convicted under Sec. 302 of IPC for intentionally causing the murder of one Ramswaroop Singh on account of an alleged dispute concurring the repayment of debt. On appeal Supreme Court held (Justice UNITWALLIA): "The High Court while confirming the death sentence does not seem to have clearly kept in view the change of law which was brought about by the 1955 amendment of the old code, when the
The deceased was unarmed when the appellant came to the room with the intention to kill her, although she tried to run away when she received the first stab, the appellant pursued her and inflicted several stabs on the vital parts of the body. There were as many as 13 injuries on her body and seven among them were fatal. Thus, we see no mitigating factors and therefore, we confirm the sentence." And to conclude, in Rajendra Prasad vs. State of U.P , the Supreme Court has observed that capital sentence may be awarded where survival of the society is in danger. The Court has expressed its fear that judicial discretion in awarding death sentence may turn out in judicial tyranny and thus, violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. In its opinion, section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) Cr.P.Code, J973 have to be read in the humane light of part III and Part IV of the Constitution, further illuminated by the Preamble of the Constitution. Death sentence may be awarded in the case of planned motivation, white collar criminals, and persons guilty of adulteration etc., hardened murderer beyond rehabilitation or where officers of law are killed by designers of murder. Further, special reasons stated by the Court in
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab , was a landmark in the escalating debate on the question of the compatibility of the death sentence with Art.21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court while holding the validity of the death penalty expressed the opinion that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance for taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases, when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. However, the Court declined to formulate any aggravating or mitigating factors as it would fetter judicial discretion, but held that a murder "diabolically conceived and cruelly executed" may attract extreme penalty. It is not possible, the court opined, to feed numerous imponderable circumstances in an imperfect and undulating society. But what are those rarest of rare occasions is the dilemma. What appears as brutal and gruesome, to one judge may not appear to be so to another. For example, in one case the murder of wife and two children with the motive of leading life with the paramour could not convince Krishna Iyer, J. for death penalty, while 'Sen, J. wondered what else could be a fit case for death penalty than the one at hand. It is submitted that if the difference in perception is so glaring among two judges of the